In a case raising serious environmental concern, the Madras High Court Division Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy recently heard a batch of writ petitions challenging the Segur Plateau Elephant Corridor Inquiry Committee and questioning the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 (TNPPF), highlighting the tension between conserving fragile elephant habitats in the Nilgiris and safeguarding private property rights.

Brief Facts :

In 2011, the Madras High Court upheld the validity of a 2010 government notification declaring the Segur Plateau Elephant Corridor, which also listed the survey numbers of lands falling within it, and directed resort owners and private landholders to vacate and hand over possession.

This order was challenged before the Supreme Court by the Hospitality Association of Mudumalai, which argued that the notified corridor did not reflect historical elephant movement patterns and that there were discrepancies between the expert committee’s recommendations and the government order.

While the Supreme Court upheld the notification, it appointed a three-member committee headed by a retired High Court judge to examine individual grievances. The committee held that, since the vendors of several resort owners had not obtained prior approval under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act before alienating land classified as private forests, such sales were null and void.

Acting on these findings, local authorities issued sealing and demolition orders against properties located within the corridor. These actions were challenged by landowners in fresh writ petitions, contending that their properties were used for residential purposes, supported by house tax receipts, electricity bills, and Panchayat-approved plans, and that the authorities lacked the power to declare their titles void or to order demolition.

Petitioners Case:

The petitioners contended that the Inquiry Committee had acted beyond its jurisdiction. While the Supreme Court had authorized the Committee to examine factual objections and grievances, it had not empowered it to declare sale deeds null and void or to dispossess landowners.

Emphasizing that their properties were used solely for residential purposes, they relied on electricity consumption records and approvals from local authorities to support their claim. They further argued that the sealing orders were invalid, as the TNPPF Act did not vest the State with powers of dispossession; at most, void transactions would revert to the vendors rather than vest in the Government.

The petitioners also pointed to procedural lapses, particularly the failure to publish cadastral maps, which left many owners unaware that their survey numbers had been included in the notified corridor.

Respondents’ Response :

The respondents defended the actions of the State and the Inquiry Committee by invoking constitutional principles, including the precautionary principle, sustainable development, and the public trust doctrine. They emphasized that safeguarding elephant corridors was vital to preserving biodiversity, mitigating human-animal conflict, and maintaining the genetic health of elephant populations.

It was further argued that, under the TNPPF Act, the District Collector was empowered to issue notifications, and that any sale or transfer of forest land without prior sanction was void. The State also alleged that several petitioners had disguised commercial ventures as residential properties, thereby justifying the sealing measures.

To bolster their case, reliance was placed on precedents such as Masinagudi Farmers Association and Kanyakumari District Planters’ Association, which upheld restrictions on activities in ecologically sensitive zones.

Court’s Observations :

The Court observed that in several instances, parties had initially obtained permission to use their lands for residential purposes but later engaged in commercial activities, which hindered the movement of elephants. It underlined that commercial activities could not be permitted in such ecologically sensitive areas and therefore refused to interfere with the demolition orders issued by the Executive Officer and local authorities on the basis of the Inquiry Committee’s findings.

However, with respect to the Committee’s recommendation that lands be handed over to the Government, the Court disagreed, clarifying that purchasers who were using their properties for agricultural purposes could continue to do so. Criticising the State for failing to acquire private lands despite accepting the Committee’s recommendations, the Bench noted that timely acquisition would have prevented the present disputes.

The Court explained that a simple sale agreement or land deal made without approval under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests (TNPPF) Act does not give the buyer a valid legal title. However, such a void transaction does not mean the land automatically belongs to the Government; instead, the land remains with the original sellers.

The Court found that the Inquiry Committee went beyond its authority when it ordered that the land be handed over to the State, since the Supreme Court had not given such a direction.

At the same time, the Court underlined that elephant corridors are vital for the environment and that the State has a constitutional duty to protect them. But it also held that private landowners with valid patta (title) cannot be stripped of their property without due process. If the State wants to use such land for conservation, it must follow proper acquisition procedures.

The Court also emphasised the need to balance possession and livelihood rights with environmental concerns.

“Therefore, even assuming that the title has not been validated in view of the permission not being granted to the petitioners under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act (TNPPF Act), the fact remains that the persons who are in possession of the properties on their own, though the sale is not valid, such persons cannot be dispossessed. The main object of the Act is only to prevent the commercial activities in the corridor, particularly, running of large scale resorts by using barbed wires etc., When the property is used for agricultural purposes or plantation, that can be continued in eco friendly methods by the persons by not disturbing the wildlife. We are of the view that there cannot be difficulty for the persons who are enjoying the property, but at the same time under the pretext of legal ownership and right, one cannot be permitted to do commercial activities.” the court observed.

Reinforcing the need for timely government intervention, the Court added:

“Therefore, we are of the definite view that if such acquisition was made at the relevant time, all these problems would not have arisen at all and the rights of the parties would have been taken care of. Having notified the elephant corridor which is the need of hour to protect the elephants' movement, at the same time, the Government has to balance the rights of the parties also. The Government cannot be a mute spectator. Allowing the persons to continue in possession of the property when the entire area has been notified and since all the barbed wires, electric fences have been removed, it will be an additional difficulty for them to even carry on agriculture, plantation etc., which will lead to the situation that the property cannot be used by the owners for any purpose other than commercial activities.”

The High Court while dismissing the petitions, directed the Government of Tamil Nadu to initiate lawful acquisition proceedings for private lands falling within the notified elephant corridor and complete the process of demarcation and GPS mapping of all survey numbers.

The State was further instructed to notify adjoining revenue lands near the Mudumalai Tiger Reserve as Reserved Forests under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882.

The acquisition process was to be commenced within six months and carried out in phases, ensuring that the grievances of affected landowners were addressed in accordance with law. Meanwhile, all commercial activities within the corridor were to remain banned.

Case Details: Sarootham Padmanabhan vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, WP No. 26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases